Roads/Bridges projects/issues

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

I got nabbed by the one on Fisher a couple months ago. I have a tendency to “default” to driving around 60km/h in many settings without much thought so it makes sense that I was clocked at 61 in the 50 zone.

Now I just avoid that area … unless I forget to in which case I set my cruise until clear. So in my case they kind of work but I don’t think they’ll be enough to crack my decades old habit.

I’ve always thought that there’s safety in numbers. By that I mean, if there are cars around you going slow due to the speed camera, you should be able to go at a speed that won’t land a ticket.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'm not sure how else we're supposed to handle an anecdote about a driver so determined to avoid speed cameras that instead of doing the most logical thing (slowing down) they instead decide to weave through a residential neighbourhood to avoid them entirely other than to criticize them for their poor and (likely) more dangerous decision.

Avoiding a speed camera (which I do) is about missing/forgetting a small section of street with a reduced speed limit.

I was out yesterday driving around, a futile attempt to find a certain product. It was interesting to observe how the city is handling speed limits and its utter inconsistency and the inconsistent posting of speed limits. Also, the proliferation of street signs of all sorts has become insane. Where speed signs are very infrequent, we are left guessing what the speed limit applies, presumably 50 but then you think you may have missed it. We are becoming conditioned to be on alert at all times for speed limit signs on every street, because there is no rhyme nor reason for setting speed limits. It could be anywhere from 30 to 70 on my little tour yesterday. And this applies to school zones as well. In one case, I drove by a school with no speed limit reduction while another has the speed limit reduced to 30 kph.

My other concern is how certain people have found ways to get the ear of city hall, so that one or two people manage to get a speed limit reduced. This is how we end up with inconsistencies that we seeing so much of these days. This happened in my neighbourhood where a straight country road with very few houses (maybe 3 over 5 km) had its speed limit reduced to 60 kph. One person accomplished this and then moved away. It was a ridiculous speed limit for the location and nobody followed the speed limit. There must have been hundreds of complaints before finally the speed limit was finally raised to 70.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I’ve always thought that there’s safety in numbers. By that I mean, if there are cars around you going slow due to the speed camera, you should be able to go at a speed that won’t land a ticket.

I was taught to go with the flow of traffic first and foremost decades ago in driver’s ed otherwise I’m a liability on the road. The opposite of what you said is also true and during manual enforcement you probably won’t get nabbed going over if everyone else around you is doing the same.

But I don’t think the cameras care if you’re going with the flow of traffic. Admittedly I don’t know how they’re programmed but I don’t see why they’d do anything but fire indiscriminately at every vehicle going over a certain threshold.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by phil235

Okay, admittedly I may have gone a bit far with that comment.

I get really irritated by people speeding on residential streets full of kids and pedestrians. To hear that an adult woman is deliberately choosing to take smaller residential streets so she can speed without consequence is pretty troubling. Maybe there is some justification for that behaviour, but I am struggling to guess what it could be.

The exact same thing happens when traffic-calming measures like speed bumps or bulb-outs are installed on a neighbourhood street, but not the next street over. Guess what... cut-through traffic just shifts to the next street over. As soon as an obstacle is introduced to a well-established traffic flow, the flow just shifts to accommodate it, whether it's a new stop sign, a reduced speed zone, a speed bump, or a camera. For better or for worse, drivers will naturally find the next most efficient route that satisfies their driving style.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

The exact same thing happens when traffic-calming measures like speed bumps or bulb-outs are installed on a neighbourhood street, but not the next street over. Guess what... cut-through traffic just shifts to the next street over. As soon as an obstacle is introduced to a well-established traffic flow, the flow just shifts to accommodate it, whether it's a new stop sign, a reduced speed zone, a speed bump, or a camera. For better or for worse, drivers will naturally find the next most efficient route that satisfies their driving style.

No doubt that where you have similar streets and one is slower than another, traffic will divert to the faster street. That’s why traffic calming needs to be done at a neighbourhood level.

But significant amounts of traffic diverting from an arterial to slower residential streets because of speed enforcement? I’m skeptical on that one.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

I was taught to go with the flow of traffic first and foremost decades ago in driver’s ed otherwise I’m a liability on the road. The opposite of what you said is also true and during manual enforcement you probably won’t get nabbed going over if everyone else around you is doing the same.

But I don’t think the cameras care if you’re going with the flow of traffic. Admittedly I don’t know how they’re programmed but I don’t see why they’d do anything but fire indiscriminately at every vehicle going over a certain threshold.

Agree with you on both counts. The speed cameras are pretty sophisticated and can photograph multiple vehicles within split seconds, capture dirty or faded plates, etc.

Safety in numbers for speeders only applies when it's a human being behind the radar 🞵🞵🞵.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

I got nabbed by the one on Fisher a couple months ago. I have a tendency to “default” to driving around 60km/h in many settings without much thought so it makes sense that I was clocked at 61 in the 50 zone.

Now I just avoid that area … unless I forget to in which case I set my cruise until clear. So in my case they kind of work but I don’t think they’ll be enough to crack my decades old habit.

There is a road very close to my place that is 50 but should probably be 70, or at least 60. There are never any speed cameras but the cops do radar all the time there.

Even though I am very close to home I generally set the cruise control on there because it's very easy to forget to slown down.

Even a reasonable driver's brain will do an assessment of what a safe speed on the road should be, and influence you to drive that fast.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Agree with you on both counts. The speed cameras are pretty sophisticated and can photograph multiple vehicles within split seconds, capture dirty or faded plates, etc.

For this reason, cars around us will slow down around the camera. In turn we have to go slow too, in which case we don’t have to worry about the speed camera nabbing us.

[Richard Eade]

The first thing that I would like to point out is that some of you set incredibly strict standards for others, even though you know little about the people. The lady that I refer to is young and has very fast reflexes. Yes, she often drives above the posted speed limit, but is quite aware of her surroundings, and adjusts for them; in both directions – sometimes driving at lower than the posted limit, if conditions warrant.

Something that you should probably factor into your judgements is that not all drivers are equal. An 82-year-old is likely less safe driving at 40 kph than a 22-year-old driving at 50 kph – all other factors kept the same. This lady knows her capabilities and has not caused or been involved in any accidents, despite driving for a living for a couple of years.

Here is a Google Street View of the camera location on Katimavik:



Notice that the camera is near a HIGH SCHOOL, where students range in age from, say, 14 to 18. How is it that these ‘children’ have survived up to this age without getting hit by cars, but that they need to be protected now?

Also, notice that between the school and the road, there is a parking lot, and a wide green buffer with trees.

Katimavik, itself, runs in a very wide, clear, Right of Way, with the sidewalks, generally a good distance from the travelled roadway. The sight-lines are clear. This road does not ‘feel’ like an unsafe road that requires a 40 kph speed limit, even with the possibility of a teenager approaching the road from the side.

This is why speeds creep up; as drivers tend to try to drive for the road. This resulted in over 11,000 tickets issued from this camera in 2022. (Down from 16,736 tickets in 2021. The greatest number from any speed camera in Ottawa in 2021.)

So, what route does she take to get around the camera?



You will probably notice that Google has indicated that the area of the camera is ‘slow’, for obvious reason. But notice that there is a section of the alternative route that is also ‘slow’. The few times that I have gone with her through this alternative routing, we have not been alone. (Does this explain some of the drop in tickets issued between 2021 and 2022?)

Then comes the big question that some failed to ask before vilifying her: How fast does she drive along the detour?

Well, I did notice that she still exceeded the speed limit, but only by 5%-10%; so she drove 42-44 kph. But this is what she ‘feels’ that she can safely drive along those smaller roads at.

Here is a Google Street View of Sewell Way:



Notice that this road is much narrower and contains obstacles. It makes people feel that they should drive slower.

As I originally posted; she takes the alternate route, not because it is faster (which it is not), but because it ensures that she does not instinctively try to drive at a ‘safe-feeling’ speed along Katimavik.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The first thing that I would like to point out is that some of you set incredibly strict standards for others, even though you know little about the people. The lady that I refer to is young and has very fast reflexes. Yes, she often drives above the posted speed limit, but is quite aware of her surroundings, and adjusts for them; in both directions – sometimes driving at lower than the posted limit, if conditions warrant.

Something that you should probably factor into your judgements is that not all drivers are equal. An 82-year-old is likely less safe driving at 40 kph than a 22-year-old driving at 50 kph – all other factors kept the same. This lady knows her capabilities and has not caused or been involved in any accidents, despite driving for a living for a couple of years.

I hear you (somewhat) but as I am sure you can appreciate that we don't set the rules of the road for people like Lewis Hamilton, whom I assume could probably drive 200+ kmh on the 417 totally safely.

The rules are actually set for a fairly low common denominator in terms of driver ability, reflexes and concentration.

[lrt's friend]

Notice that this road is much narrower and contains obstacles. It makes people feel that they should drive slower.

As I originally posted; she takes the alternate route, not because it is faster (which it is not), but because it ensures that she does not instinctively try to drive at a ‘safe-feeling’ speed along Katimavik.

These are some of the points that I have been trying to make.

Traffic calming measures including those flexible poles do make you slow down naturally.

We are going to see much more traffic rerouting to go around speed cameras where the speed limit is set well below a natural safe level from a driver's perspective. I have told myself a few times, that I have to drive at a slow speed where there is a speed camera but then forget because of traffic conditions or whatever when I actually get there. Fortunately, I ended up not going too fast to get a ticket, but it added to my stress level when I realized that I missed the sign. So now I change my route. They are now going to do the same on Hunt Club, not because of a 'safety school zone', but because they reduced the speed limit well below the natural driving level for the road conditions, and most people don't comply with it. So, in this case, I will take a slower, slightly longer route on residential streets, to avoid accidentally driving too fast and getting whacked with an unwelcomed $100++ fine that I can't really afford right now.

[Richard Eade]

Unfortunately, I will need to disagree with you about Mr. Hamilton driving at 200+ kph on the 417. He drives very fast in KNOWN conditions. On the race track, there are very strict protocols that are followed by ALL drivers. There needs to be, or no-one would survive it.

Drivers on the 417 are not so uniform in their actions. Placed into a scenario of unpredictability, such as the 417, I expect that even Mr. Hamilton would drive at a 'reasonable' speed.

What a 'reasonable' speed is depends on a lot of factors. Some might think that 80 kph is reasonable on the 417, as long as they stay in the right-most lane. Others think that the general speed of 110 kph is too slow, and so move into the left lane to go 115 kph.

I think that if anyone went blasting past cars on the 417, at a speed that is almost double the speed of the masses, it could, reasonably, be expected to cause terror and accidents.

I realize that you were using Mr. Hamilton as an example of someone who you believe capable of driving at high speeds. I just needed to point out that it may not have been a good example.

Others have said that they were told in Driver's Ed that it was safest to fit in with the flow of traffic. Having a large differential in speeds on the road is, generally, dangerous. It doesn't matter if that difference is higher or lower than the group's speed.

This is a big problem for roads that 'feel' safe at speeds above what their posted maximum is. For example, if you drive Hwy 7 (2-lane sections) at the posted 80 kph, you will be an impediment to others. This causes frustration among other drivers who 'feel' that the road should be driven at 100 kph. Frustration often leads to dangerous acts.

[lrt's friend]

This all reminds me of the Albion/Lester intersection closure from 10 or 15 years ago. It actually divided the community, neighbour against neighbour.

In that case, it was designed to reduce through traffic in a residential area. The alternate routes were substantial detours.

People immediately became creative, which ended up making the location less safe. U-turns became very common, and also cut throughs on narrow private streets. Traffic enforcement became problematic, and signs were erected all over of the place and additional streets were closed. To locals, it required long detours (in some cases 5 km detours) onto other residential streets.

The original solution was an unacceptable long-term plan, that required an intervention from a councillor from another ward, to eliminate the closure.

The ultimate solution, which did not require the sledge-hammer approach, was to install more stop signs to slow down traffic. If it was too slow, a faster alternate route was available.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Unfortunately, I will need to disagree with you about Mr. Hamilton driving at 200+ kph on the 417. He drives very fast in KNOWN conditions. On the race track, there are very strict protocols that are followed by ALL drivers. There needs to be, or no-one would survive it.

Drivers on the 417 are not so uniform in their actions. Placed into a scenario of unpredictability, such as the 417, I expect that even Mr. Hamilton would drive at a 'reasonable' speed.

What a 'reasonable' speed is depends on a lot of factors. Some might think that 80 kph is reasonable on the 417, as long as they stay in the right-most lane. Others think that the general speed of 110 kph is too slow, and so move into the left lane to go 115 kph.

I think that if anyone went blasting past cars on the 417, at a speed that is almost double the speed of the masses, it could, reasonably, be expected to cause terror and accidents.

I realize that you were using Mr. Hamilton as an example of someone who you believe capable of driving at high speeds. I just needed to point out that it may not have been a good example.

Others have said that they were told in Driver's Ed that it was safest to fit in with the flow of traffic. Having a large differential in speeds on the road is, generally, dangerous. It doesn't matter if that difference is higher or lower than the group's speed.

This is a big problem for roads that 'feel' safe at speeds above what their posted maximum is. For example, if you drive Hwy 7 (2-lane sections) at the posted 80 kph, you will be an impediment to others. This causes frustration among other drivers who 'feel' that the road should be driven at 100 kph. Frustration often leads to dangerous acts.

I am actually 80-90% in agreement with you.

I think that a lot of these decisions that are supposed to make things better end up causing not-so-great behaviour among a lot of drivers.

Which means I know your friend does what she does, although that doesn't make her behaviour laudable or even inconsequential.

There are lots reasons why we want to keep through traffic off streets like her shortcut route, with for example the likelihood of kids running out in front of a car on one versus the other.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am actually 80-90% in agreement with you.

I think that a lot of these decisions that are supposed to make things better end up causing not-so-great behaviour among a lot of drivers.

Which means I know your friend does what she does, although that doesn't make her behaviour laudable or even inconsequential.

There are lots reasons why we want to keep through traffic off streets like her shortcut route, with for example the likelihood of kids running out in front of a car on one versus the other.

I think the issue is that when you start issuing thousands of tickets at a specific location, are there not other solutions that should be tried? When tickets are issued at that high of level, people will start making decisions to protect their financial interests. Yes, there may be overall reduction in traffic speeds, but there will also be unintended consequences such as having traffic re-route around the speed trap and in some cases onto residential streets. I think this is inevitable.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The first thing that I would like to point out is that some of you set incredibly strict standards for others, even though you know little about the people. The lady that I refer to is young and has very fast reflexes. Yes, she often drives above the posted speed limit, but is quite aware of her surroundings, and adjusts for them; in both directions – sometimes driving at lower than the posted limit, if conditions warrant.

Something that you should probably factor into your judgements is that not all drivers are equal. An 82-year-old is likely less safe driving at 40 kph than a 22-year-old driving at 50 kph – all other factors kept the same. This lady knows her capabilities and has not caused or been involved in any accidents, despite driving for a living for a couple of years.

Notice that the camera is near a HIGH SCHOOL, where students range in age from, say, 14 to 18. How is it that these ‘children’ have survived up to this age without getting hit by cars, but that they need to be protected now?

Also, notice that between the school and the road, there is a parking lot, and a wide green buffer with trees.

Katimavik, itself, runs in a very wide, clear, Right of Way, with the sidewalks, generally a good distance from the travelled roadway. The sight-lines are clear. This road does not ‘feel’ like an unsafe road that requires a 40 kph speed limit, even with the possibility of a teenager approaching the road from the side.

This is why speeds creep up; as drivers tend to try to drive for the road. This resulted in over 11,000 tickets issued from this camera in 2022. (Down from 16,736 tickets in 2021. The greatest number from any speed camera in Ottawa in 2021.)

Sorry, I don't find this to be a particularly compelling argument. She's young, with fast reflexes and has been driving for a couple of years? High school students aren't really "children" so they we don't need to worry about safety around schools?

Young drivers with their fast reflexes are actually responsible for a disproportionate share of accidents, so clearly reflexes aren't the whole story. One commonality amongst age groups is that most drivers tend to overestimate their driving ability. Also, both young drivers and high school students are known for their relative inability to judge risks. And have you seen a group of high school students leaving school? They are almost more likely to dart into the road unexpectedly than a 10-year old is.

Not sure what you mean when you say we are setting "incredibly strict standards for others". First, I apply the same standard to myself. And second, I'm pretty sure that no one is suggesting that the photo radar should be set at 1 kmph over the limit. I would be perfectly fine with 10 or a bit higher. But people approaching 20 over on a street with pedestrians is dangerous. Full stop.

You are right that street design is a big factor in traffic speeds, but it's not realistic that we are going to redesign all of these streets short term. Right now our most dangerous streets are ones designed for relatively high traffic speeds that see lots of pedestrians. And it's not hypothetical - just google "pedestrians hit in Ottawa" and tell me that there isn't an issue that we need to address as soon as we can.

[Spoonsy]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Notice that the camera is near a HIGH SCHOOL, where students range in age from, say, 14 to 18. How is it that these ‘children’ have survived up to this age without getting hit by cars, but that they need to be protected now?

probably because its the children behind the wheel that are the concern. likely why most of the ASEs were put in front of high schools not preschools

16.8 year olds with fresh G2s driving mom's acura who are doing burnouts out of the holy trinity high school parking lot with more passengers than there are seatbelts on their way to mcdonalds on lunch recess

in this scenario $100 fine mailed to mom and dad is gonna be more effective at behavioural change than road design

i grew up in kanata... ASE in front of holy trinity, all saints, ay jackson, and sacred heart high schools probably one of the smartest things they could have done

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Here is a Google Street View of the camera location on Katimavik:

Notice that the camera is near a HIGH SCHOOL, where students range in age from, say, 14 to 18. How is it that these ‘children’ have survived up to this age without getting hit by cars, but that they need to be protected now?

It's been a bit bizarre to watch this argument unfold in this thread. I felt compelled to comment on this one because the school in question is where I spent a number of years in the 90s.

For clarity, the grades at this school are 7-12, so that means that students are as young as 11. There is also an attached daycare centre. Many of the students at this school walk to school or take OC Transpo, so there is a high volume of pedestrian traffic on Katimavik. The argument that somehow teenagers and pre-teens are immune to the dangers speeding cars, or not deserving of action to address the problem, is quite odd.

I agree that many of our roads are designed in such a way to encourage speeding. I fully support the idea of redirecting the funds from camera fines to making permanent improvements. Of course, this will take decades.

There seems to be a thought that traffic cameras are "unfair". Why? Is it unfair to get pulled over for speeding by an officer? And if not, why is a speed camera any different?

There are clearly many opponents to the idea of speed cameras on this board. Can I ask you - what is your suggested alternative to ensure that vehicles obey the speed limit? Many of the posts seem rooted in the idea that speed limits are arbitrary and don't need to be followed. But speeding traffic is consistently one of the top concerns raised to city councillors and police. And there is research on the dangers to pedestrian and cyclists of higher speed traffic.

As phil235 mentions, pedestrian collisions have been on the rise. In early November, there were 5 pedestrians hit in 2 days. We can't just throw up our hands and do nothing. Hopefully these cameras, and the tickets that result, will start to influence driver behaviour so people just slow down.

[rocketphish]

City councillor worries speed cameras being used as a cash grab
4 new cameras will be installed outside of community safety zones

Joseph Tunney · CBC News
Posted: Feb 28, 2023 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 3 hours ago

Installing speed cameras outside of community safety zones is meant to keep speeders in check on worrisome stretches of road, but one Ottawa city councillor thinks some of his colleagues see the cameras as a fundraising tool.

Under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, photo radar speed cameras are only authorized in school zones or designated "community safety zones." Municipalities can, however, can make their own designation in order to install cameras if they believe "public safety is of special concern."

The City of Ottawa announced 17 new speed camera locations last week, including 11 within school zones and two near parks and playgrounds. Four will be installed in areas where speeding is viewed as a problem.

Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley says he is worried the cameras are just as much for safety as they are for spending by his colleagues.

"I, like a whole lot of other people, [am] very concerned that there may be people around the council table that see this as a chance to grab a whole lot of money to fund whatever their special programs are that they want to fund," said Hubley.

The four new cameras installed outside of safety zones will be at:

• Hunt Club Road between Lorry Greenberg Drive and Pike Street.
• Walkley Road between Harding Road and Halifax Drive.
• Montreal Road from Ogilvie Road to Foxborough Private to Bethamy Lane.
• King Edward Avenue between Cathcart and St. Patrick streets.

Hubley said he supports more cameras in school zones, but he believes the pilot to expand them onto city streets feeds into the cash-grab narrative.

"It's just purely a lot of speeders, so we're gonna make a lot of money," said Hubley.

Gloucester-Southgate Ward Coun. Jessica Bradley, whose ward will include the Hunt Club Road camera, believes safety benefits of more speed cameras outweighs any other concerns.

"It's not feasible to have an Ottawa police officer at the corner every day," she said. "And so I think that this is one tool that the city has at its disposal to get that compliance."

Bradley said the stretch of road on Hunt Club has been a problem since access to Highway 417 opened about a decade ago.

"It's a busy place. But it's not just a thoroughfare, it is very much a street that the community uses," she said.

Bradley also said the goal of the camera program is "to encourage compliance", not to raise revenues.

Likewise, River ward Coun. Riley Brockington said he welcomes the camera coming to his ward, which is near Mooney's Bay park where there are many events, especially in the warmer months.

"At night in the summer, they literally become racetracks," he said.

Brockington previously spoke before the provincial legislature at Queen's Park asking for the Ontario government to give municipalities permission to use the technology.

"The provincial government has always been concerned that municipalities would abuse the technology, abuse the authority, and just have them everywhere," he said. "That's not the intent. We would never do that in Ottawa. We haven't done that with red light cameras."

Brockington said there is still restricted use of the speed cameras, and disagrees with Hubley they are cash grabs.

He said cities must tell motorists when they're entering a speed enforcement zone and revenues raised can only go toward road safety initiatives.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/speed-cameras-new-locations-reaction-1.6761095

[lrt's friend]

What they fail to mention here, at least in the case of Hunt Club, is that they engineered the road for 80kph speed limits, then they suddenly reduced it to 60 kph and then wonder why there is a lack of speed compliance. In this location, housing backs onto Hunt Club, so Hunt Club is a very wide boulevard with nothing more than fences facing it. This is nothing more than a cash grab.